Lawyer: Children benefit from gay marriage ban

[Ed Barrow]

Source: Associated Press

A lawyer for supporters of California's gay marriage ban argued Wednesday in a landmark federal trial that Proposition 8 was constitutional because limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples ensures children have the benefits of being raised by biological parents.

Attorney Charles Cooper delivered his closing argument as the case challenging the voter-approved measure resumed after a months-long break.

Cooper said societies around the world have always seen marriage as a way to keep children from being born out of wedlock.

"The historical record leaves no doubt, your honor, none whatsoever, that the central purpose of marriage in all societies at virtually all times is to channel procreative relationships into stable relationships to ensure that offspring that result from those relationships are raised in those stable relationships," Cooper said.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100616/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

[Barack_America]

1. Yeah, California should disable their CPS department too.

That'll keep more children with their biologic parents and save the taxpayers a nice chunk of change as well.

Plus, we all know that abuse builds character.




:sarcasm:
Of course

[Barack_America]

5. Oh, and they should clearly outlaw adoption outright as well.

Sorry to reply to myself, but these comments have me THAT pissed!

[saigon68]

21. Another Hateful Homophobe whipping up the SHEEP

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Married gay people can father or give birth to kids. And as to the historical record about marriage

are we counting situations where women and young girls were (are) forced into arranged marriages, bought and sold like any other commodity? How stable are those marriages?

[TriMera]

3. I was following the arguments on Twitter.

When the judge asked if the state should bar marriages for infertile couples, Cooper's response was, "No, Sir." Yet another lame argument from the bigot brigade.:eyes:

[msongs]

4. kids might benefit from a divorced christians ban as well, particularly divorced mormons lol nt

[PassingFair]

6. I agree that the central purpose of marriage is to protect the interests of the children.

As an able-bodied member of the work force,
I would NEVER have gotten married if I didn't want
children. I would have happily co-habited with
my boyfriend.

That said....it is CRAZY for any society to DENY
marriage and the benefits it confers with regards
to inheritance, dissolution of joint property, etc.
to anyone who wants it.

Would they deny marriage to two 60 year-olds?
A non-fertile man and/or woman?

His argument does NOT hold water!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Once again the perfect is made the enemy of the good. n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

8. THAT'S his strongest argument???

[Fearless]

9. Yet the AMA and APA say otherwise... hmm... who to agree with... doctors or pundits??

[Bluenorthwest]

10. If this is their thinking, it seems they ought to spend their time

making divorce illegal, at least for those how have or might have children. If that is the whole point, why aren't they doing that? Divorce is the enemy, not marriage.

[Moonwalk]

11. Keeping Kids from Being Born out of Wedlock is the Purpose of Marriage? Silly me...

I had this strange idea that I was living in the 21st century where most folk don't give a shit if a child is born out of wedlock.

And someone needs to re-read all those historical records at virtually all times. Leaves no doubt? Is this guy smoking crack? If raising kids in a stable relationship was the historical purpose of marriage, then it did a sucky job of it...or so say the historical records! Marriage doesn't make sure the two getting married are psychologically stable enough to raise kids, emotionally stable enough to raise kids, healthy enough to raise kids, financially able to afford kids, or going to stick around to raise them, come to that. Hell, according to most historical records, married parents have given away kids to be apprenticed or used them to work farms before age seven. Doesn't sound like marriage did anything to make sure offspring were raised in stable relationships. Just that property got passed on to those off-spring if there was property to pass on.

[MurrayDelph]

13. It's stupider than that

He is basically saying that without marriage, children would be born out of marriage, therefore we should limit who gets to be married.

[Titanothere]

17. If all that's the case then what do you care?

Just sign your will, have your domestic partership and be done with it.

It cracks me up to hear people just blasting marriage as the most worthless institution ever, and then scream and cry banging on the door to get in on it.

There seems to be a lot more of the "nobody's gonna tell me I can't do this!" in a lot of people's argument then a real humble desire to get married and raise a family.

[Moonwalk]

19. Just because the lunch counter serves shitty food, doesn't mean--

--it should be allowed to serve whites only.

And what the fuck does "raising a family" have to do with marriage? Because people have been raising families without marriage for years. And plenty of folk have married without intending to do any such thing. Do you, once again, tell people who say they aren't going to have kids that they don't need to get married? That they don't really desire marriage if that's the case?

Arrogant much?

Marriage is, frankly, a contract. Whatever "sacred" or holy element you believe is in it can be gotten by being blessed by the "priest" of your choice. But when the state or nation you are in says that a particular contract, which is called a "marriage" contract allows you certain advantages that NO OTHER CONTRACT (including domestic partnership) allows, then you may want to get married. It doesn't matter whether historically, marriage might have been have been worthless, all that matters in this instance is what it's worth in California. And it's worth a whole fucking lot. You cannot get as much with a will and a domestic partnership.

And that is the argument. Why should certain citizens be forced into "domestic partnerships" that don't give them everything marriage does instead of being allowed to marry? It's really that simple. And until I see you grilling every heterosexual couple as to what they think marriage is worth, then I don't think you should be throwing stones at these or any other arguments. Because I promise you, there are plenty of heterosexuals that don't think marriage is worth much outside of the legal benefits it gives the partners. Yet they don't have to defend themselves as having a 'humble desire" to get married in order to get it, do they?

So neither do the gays. And shame on you for demanding they do. No one needs to justify their desire to have something that they rightly should have as a citizen of this nation.

[mac56]

20. +1, moonwalk

[Tempest]

12. Walker tore Cooper a new one

Walker asked Cooper questions on whether the state should revoke marriage licenses to couple with no children after Cooper said having children was the purpose of marriage.

From Walker's questioning yesterday, I believe he's going to invalidate Prop 8.

[DirkGently]

14. Sounds like an argument against adoption in general

I think it's good to bring all the arguments forward though -- should reveal the big, fearful hole in the gay banning logic.

We ought to, as a society, drill down into where the fears that generate these kinds of struggles come from, instead of just screaming at each other.

Obviously, homosexuality is a taboo in our culture. Why? I think it may be as simple as ancient tribes wanting to make sure nothing interfered with procreation. If we can talk about where the taboos come from, we can examine whether they comprise traditions that still track logically or not. The need for maximum procreation, for example, is obsolete in a world with, if anything, too many people in it.

[Moonwalk]

15. I don't think homosexuality is taboo because tribes want to make sure--

nothing interferes with procreation. Remember that homosexuality wasn't taboo in all ancient tribes. Ancient Greece was just fine with it, as were many Native American tribes. So we can't trace any such taboo back to ancient tribes, assuming that it's been going on forever among all human cultures or even the one that led to our own. It hasn't. It comes and goes. I believe that the current taboo in our culture relates simply to men fearing being raped by other men. Keep in mind that once-upon-a-time we didn't understand the truth about sexual predators. Men who committed rape on other men or boys were thought to be homosexuals.

In that context, fear of homosexuals and taboos makes sense. Also, people always yearn for a "norm" in their lives, and anything outside it disturbs them. Like men or women not wearing the usual clothing to distinguish which is which. Or not acting in the usual way to distinguish which is which.

These, I think, are the more likely roots of homosexual taboos in our society than not wanting anything to interfere with procreation. Especially since ancient tribes often follow the idea of one man having lots of women. More gays means more women for such men (and among the women, doesn't stop the man from having sex with wives and reproducing), so why would they be adverse to it?

To get to this level of taboo, this level of discomfort with the very idea of it, requires that you disseminate a lot more fear and hatred. And that usually comes from visceral reactions--like discomfort and fear.

[LostinVA]

18. The "taboo" against being gay is misogyny

Nothing more and nothing less.

[DirkGently]

22. Interesting thoughts

Guess I'm thinking of the Judeo-Christian tradition, where there is such emphasis on "be frutiful and multiply," and where even "spilling your seed upon the ground" is a sin. The Hebrews, and later the Catholics, anyway, focused very much on having big families.

I agree though that whatever the roots, the taboo is now informed mostly by fear. Only fear creates the kind of hatred, rage and violence associated with modern anti-gay emotion. I don't know about male rape as the key component, though -- look at the level of hostility directed at gay women.

The bigger picture is just control of sex and procreation in general, I think. The idea of no sex before marriage seems largely rooted in making sure children's fathers are known, which is a big deal in patrilinear societies like Europe's. Sex in general can be a big destabilizing force, and all societies try to control it to one degree or another.

I think we'd do a lot better as a society pulling all of this stuff out and looking at -- tracing what traditional mores make sense, for what reasons, and which ones don't. The problem is that the religious view of morality tends to be blindly following tradition, without any analysis or willingness to look at the human reasons behind them.

[Moonwalk]

23. The hostility toward gay women--

Relates to misogyny and anything women do that is "man-like" rather than the prescribed idea of what is "feminine." I didn't mean to imply that the link to fear by men of being raped by other men also applied to hatred of lesbians. But remember that until recently (historically speaking) men really did control women and so most folk didn't even think of lesbians or hate them in the way that they hated and feared gay men because women had no power to act on their desires. They were locked away as daughter and then as wives. Gay men, on the other hand, with all the freedom of men to be in power and do what they liked, were viewed as predators--they still are as people equate pedophilia with being gay. Gay women are less so though that same fear of what these women might do to children became a concern as single women took over as grade-school teachers. .

As for the "fruitful and multiply" element--it's far more likely that the Hebrews hated homosexuals because they hated societies that engaged in it, like the Greeks. Come to that, however, the Hebrews got a lot of their traditions and cultural ways from the Egyptians, and the Egyptians didn't like gays--so you if you're looking for root causes, don't look to the bible, look to Egypt. Our Western society isn't just the Bible. It's Egyptian and Greek civilization, Roman, Gauls, Saxons, Vikings and Celts. All these tribes contributed to what we are.

Of course, the clearest proof that hatred of homosexuality had nothing to do with having children relates to the fact that homosexuals did have kids--and still got in trouble. There were plenty of married husband and wives, fathers and mothers, having gay sex on the side--and they still got stoned for that. So even those who were married, had done their duty, and were still doing their duty of obeying the Bible's rule to multiply ended up being killed for having gay sex.

[DirkGently]

24. It's a perceived threat, though clearly unjustified

Yes, I do tend to look through the lense of the Judeo-Christian tradition -- seems like that's what's thrown up most as a block to progressive social change in Modern America. The cultural roots you mention are interesting, though. It's interesting to think about what role, for example, hostility to Greek cultural may have played.

Still, the taboo is nearly universal. Look at Africa. Sure, they're spurred on by the continuing flood of "Christian" missionaries preaching violence and hatred, but the Family and others seem to find very fertile grounds for their "teachings" there. I think that speaks to an organic psychological mistrust of non-standard sexuality in general, and I relate that to a fear for the family structure -- a loss of parents to outside interests and so forth.

Of course, the clearest proof that hatred of homosexuality had nothing to do with having children relates to the fact that homosexuals did have kids--and still got in trouble. There were plenty of married husband and wives, fathers and mothers, having gay sex on the side--and they still got stoned for that. So even those who were married, had done their duty, and were still doing their duty of obeying the Bible's rule to multiply ended up being killed for having gay sex.

I think this actually reinforces my original thought. Homosexuality wasn't traditionally a parallel to heterosexual, family-raising sexuality. It existed as something done on the side, or in addition to. Off the books, so to speak. Somewhere along the line, someone felt threatened by this. Perhaps a few soldiers were spending too much time with their "comrades" and not enough with the children. Perhaps it became too open a practice, threatened to "speak its name" so to speak. But it never went away -- just back underground. Where empowered groups like things outside the norm to stay.

Or, do you know of a tradition similar to what at least a segment of the gay population is looking for today -- monogamous, long-term family structure? That seems like a new idea, and thus, a new threat. Silly as it is, I think one of the babbling, insane voices of society's inner pscyhe keeps saying "What if EVERYONE was gay and entered into gay marriage? How we will continue to exist?" This kind of slippery slope thinking misinforms a lot of arguments today ("if they can take away one kind of gun ...") etc.

Stepping back from that element -- which I still believe plays a role -- I think we're now dealing with a more familiar pattern in America of people simply wanting an underclass -- someone to look down on. To have groups with an inherent, irreversible lack of power to occupy the lower rungs. I'm thinking now of the rage of Southern whites watching the first black students show up for school in Alabama. That's a rage born of *entitlement*. These were (and are) people who believe in the "zero-sum" notion of social power. If you have more, I must have less. It couldn't be more wrong, but the idea holds a lot of power.

I come to this in part based on what I perceive as a willingness by conservative groups to accept the existence of homosexuality, as long as it remains a hidden "sin," rather than an acceptable human mode. Thus all the claims of a "gay agenda" to "shove it down our throats" and so forth. "It's not that you're gay, it's that you're failing to lie about it, and thus elevating yourself from the underclass."

What they'd like, as in so many circumstances, is for everyone to agree upon a lie. Like the Iranian leader hilariously declaring that there is no homosexuality in Iran, when the obvious truth is that there is no OPEN homosexuality in Iran, because homosexuals there are afraid, which is the way they like it. The message is "Be different, but be afraid."

[Moonwalk]

25. While I agree with some things you're saying--

The "make babies" argument still doesn't hold water. For example, you say to look at Africa. But Africa is not, nor has it ever been isolated from other influences. Like Egypt back in the day--and Rome after that. Influences go way back. African anti-gayness now owes as much to Egypt and Islam as to anything else. So I'm afraid you can't pretend that Africa was isolated from the rest of the world and magically had this taboo among all it's tribes because all humans have this reproduction phobia.

Try looking at American Indians instead. They were "isolated" and--hey, whadda ya know? Many of them were very accepting of homosexuality. So, once again, your theory of the threat to childbearing goes down the tubes. Or check out India where transexual men who dressed and acted as women, going so far as to castrate themselves--no kids there--were accepted as "holy women' in India for a very long time--their non-acceptance being a very recent thing.

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't scan that the equation of gay = no kids means that it's taboo everywhere. It's not and has not been taboo everywhere at all times.

And your remark about a few soldiers spending too much time with their "comrades" and not enough with the children...and that would matter to whom? Women were raising the kids, and men have been off to war (or to the pub!) with their comrades, ignoring the kids as a matter of course. This comment also implies that homosexuals don't pay attention to their children. EXCUSE ME? You might as well say that some man was paying attention to his concubines rather than to his kids. But i don't see anyone stoning him for having concubines. And men did get close to their comrades. Look at Sparta where men were expected to have soldier buddies who were equal to their spouses. No one objecting there because the men are off with men and not paying attention to the women or children.

Men, in fact, celebrated men for going off to war for years on end rather than hanging with the wife and kids. It was a very manly thing to do. What wasn't manly was the anal sex. :eyes: Now, might there be people with that slippery slope argument of all this leading to no kids? Of course. But I really doubt that's root cause of the matter since the male psyche is usually focused on "have sex!" not "have children!" And the focus of men (who are the ones in charge) is who is in power? What is the pecking order? In certain societies where homosexuality was acceptable, there were rules about who got to be on-top. It mattered in regards to status. Taking on the "Woman's role" could get a man viewed with contempt--and set low in the pecking order. So, once again, it's far more likely that the collective psyche you mention is more about "what role is a person playing" not "will they procreate." And, as another person mention, it really does have more to do with misogyny in that case.

We can even see this in great apes, where males do dominate each other that way. Back again to men fearing that they're going to be raped. Yes?

[DirkGently]

26. Hmmm. We'll have to agree to disagree here

I think your observations vis a vis traditional family structure / child rearing are worthwhile, and I think there's plenty of nuance and room for discussion in that regard, but I still think you give society too much credit. Fear can be irrational, and taboo by its very nature never explains its causes. I understand that homosexuality hasn't been a universal taboo, but I think if you looked at where it was greatest, the desire for large families / tribes would be right there with it. I base this, too, on the echoes we're hearing in the debate today -- children are constantly brought up as a reason to fear gays.

Edit: Let me add, though, that there's more even to what I'm saying than numbers of children. It's as much a fear of uncontrolled sex in general that we're talking about, I think. Monogamy and marriage are society's big security blankets for the whole constellation of concerns regarding sexual conduct. Where (and I note with interest the exceptions you point out) homosexuals represent a force outside the constraints of marriage, they're perceived as a potential destabilizing force. See my last graf or two where I'll get back to that.

And I still can't buy the fear of male rape as any kind of societal motivator. Rape as a component of dominance is antithetical to consensual gay relations -- it's violence, and it's as separate from normal human intercourse as heterosexual sex and man / woman rape. And fairly or unfairly, gay men are generally not perceived by straight men as a physical threat. The closest dynamic I perceive to what you're saying is the Greek affinity for man / boy relations, which remains taboo because it IS rape based on our modern conception of child abuse. I realize relating normal gay relations and child abuse is a charged issue because the two are deliberately confused in today's debate, but when you bring up Greece, you have to consider that the two things did intersect in that context. And, as noted, a portion of the homophobic rhetoric we hear today tries to equate child abuse and homosexuality. I just don't see it as as big a factor as this notion that homosexuality somehow threatens the traditional family structure.

Edit: Which leads back around to marriage and the nature of hardened rhetoric. If homosexuals DO marry, DO carry on traditional family structures, complete with children, then (what I see as) the biggest underlying fear is undercut. And for people invested in an anti-gay worldview, taking away the threat to traditional marriage ruins things, because it alleviates the prime motivator.

In other words, how can we (the homophobic block) pretend that homosexuals are coming to take away our husbands and wives and children ... if they have their own already?

It may seem a stretch, but I relate this to other ultra-conservative views like the idea that birth control is a "sin." Take away the threat of unplanned pregnancy, and you undercut a big argument for controlling sexual activity via monogamous marriage. That's the thing with dogmatic moral views -- contrary or evolving facts are threatening, because the rule itself (rather than whatever the original reason behind it may have been) becomes the important thing. Which leads around again to why I think we should be dragging these things out in the open and talking about where they came from.

So thanks for doing that with me, even if we can't agree on the specifics. :)